Both it and Israel aid does. Additionally, the financial package itself isn’t for Ukraine. It’s to replenish existing US weapons being sent to Ukraine for the US arsenal.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Both it and Israel aid does. Additionally, the financial package itself isn’t for Ukraine. It’s to replenish existing US weapons being sent to Ukraine for the US arsenal.
I wouldn’t say that. However, there is a strain of nationalism that exists in the population imo. Some of it is organic and the rest is brainwashed into the population by way of non stop domestic propaganda. Even when I was in Ukraine, most of the channels had Russian tv on full blast, which even there, rubbed off on the locals.
Mike Johnson has already decided that a war on the IRS is more important than his support for Israel, a country he is supposed to care deeply about.
So, i don't see anything getting through the house in terms of Ukraine in the forseeable future.
They will still get their weapons since the bill is to replenish US weapons, not to manufacture new ones for Ukraine. Also, if Johnson wants the Israel package to go through, he will have to play ball on Ukraine. That’s if he actually remains as speaker as there are rumblings he may not make it much further if he can’t avoid a shutdown in a week.
Operation isolate Crimea continues to find great success.
Link up some of the money laundering aspects of the Ukraine war. Sounds interesting.
Not that different from most countries then.
More moral issues on the Russian side.
I mean that form of exceptionalism isn't particularly unique. Not in the West too I should add.
Would also be interested in Suedesi's views on the matter given the above information.
That is partially true. Putin doesn't trust the West, as we have reneged on every agreement regarding previous conflicts (such as Minsk 1, Minsk 2, and the issue of no eastern NATO expansion if you want to go back further). I think once he secures control over the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, he may agree to a treaty, provided that Ukraine remains a weakened state with limited power. That's just realpolitik.
In the war of attrition, Russia has the upper hand. Russia is stronger militarily than Ukraine in every metric: production, military technology, and personnel.
For example, Russia is now producing over 5 million artillery shells a year, while the US can barely produce 360,000 a year. It's a significant disparity.
Another example is the cost of manufacturing artillery rounds. It costs a NATO country between $5,000 to $6,000 to produce a 155-millimeter artillery round, while it costs Russia around $600 to produce a comparable 152-millimeter shell. Oh, never mind, it's actually 8,000 Euros now.
We can discuss the root causes if you're interested, but your argument to "keep supplying Ukraine until Russia eventually breaks" seems wishful thinking.
https://www.taxpayer.net/budget-appropriations-tax/why-cant-the-pentagon-pass-an-audit/
It's institutionalized corruption meet one of the most corrupt countries in Eastern Europe. Put 2 and 2 together, or do you need a tweet?
The link has nothing to do with Ukraine.
If the Russian military was stronger, he would've conquered all of Ukraine from the beginning. The reality is it isn't nearly as strong as you claim and with the Russian economy continuously suffering from sanctions, Russian troops being ill-equipped and suffering from low morale (and in many cases being incompetent given they are being forced to free prisoners to fight), there is no advantage for the Russians at all, particularly when you factor in that Ukrainians are fighting to preserve their own country and the Russians fighting to invade a foreign one.
Last edited:
It's also from 2000
So smug when posting it, yet missed that tidbit of information.
I'm sure he will correct this minor oversight with a Vivek or Peter Thiel op-ed or a PDB podcast.
I am too busy to participate in the match day thread, and frankly, I think there's too much fog of war to take any news at face value or to comment on it. Consider these headlines for context:
- NBC NEWS, JUNE 12: "Ukraine claims first gains in its counteroffensive against Russia" https://nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-claims-first-gains-counteroffensive-russia-rcna88789
- NBC NEWS, AUG 31: "Ukrainian forces make gains on front line, Kyiv says. The breakthrough, if it holds, would be a vindication for Ukraine" https://nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-counteroffensive-breakthough-crimea-rcna102799
- NBC NEWS, SEPT 7: "Ukrainian counteroffensive is making 'tangible progress' against Russia, Blinken tells NBC News. 'I think we are seeing real forward movement'" https://nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-counteroffensive-progress-russia-blinken-interview-rcna103681
- NBC NEWS, NOV 3: Biden administration officials "are worried that Ukraine is running out of forces", and Ukraine "only has until the end of the year" before "urgent discussions" are necessary. https://nbcnews.com/news/world/us-european-officials-broach-topic-peace-negotiations-ukraine-sources-rcna123628
As someone who focuses on the bigger picture, I admit that I struggle to understand the strategic necessity of promising NATO membership to Ukraine. It seems illogical to me. Expanding NATO into countries with unstable conditions or those adjacent to potentially hostile neighbors increases the risk to American lives, given United States' obligation to defend each new member state. The only way this makes sense is from Lockheed's, Boeing's, Raytheon's, Northrop's and Halliburton's point of view.
Your focus on the MIC is funny. You can blame Putin for boosting the American MIC by invading Ukraine.
NATO membership isn't being prioritized for them. As a sovereign state, they are eligible to apply for it without any coercion or intimidation to prevent them from handling their own affairs by their neighbor.
If you're interested in the bigger picture then you should consider why Putin doesn't want a strong and stable democratic state populated with considerable Russian speakers right on his own border - he is after all an authoritarian strong man who suppresses democracy in Russia to preserve his own life, because he knows a Russian population who see freedom in Ukraine will want the same for themselves; something that would lead to him being overthrown and probably killed in the process.
The bits about defense contractors is also not accurate. Unlike China and Russia, who have the luxury of nationalizing their respective defense industrial bases, the US as a capitalist nation doesn't have such a luxury and must instead rely on the private companies within the US to help generate the military hardware needed to be prepared for potential conflicts. Its therefore simply capitalism 101 that the US creates contracts with companies to supply them with what is needed.
Nobody gives a rats ass about Nazirusaia, free Ukraine is a sovereign state and valuable NATO ally in the near future. And all war criminals will be punished.
If you're seeking a link, it will become apparent once the 'fog of war' clears. Given the context – U.S. taxpayers channeling aid through the Pentagon, a department infamous for waste, fraud, and abuse, underscored by its failure to pass an audit, to a nation that has been and remains among the most corrupt in Eastern Europe – there will undoubtedly be ample material to consider.
Until "it becomes apparent", maybe its a good idea to not suggest it exists. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence and all that.
NATO officials made it very clear that Ukraine could only join once the war is over. This might even mean that Ukraine has to give up territory now occupied by Russia to fulfill this requirement. For NATO it makes sense to add another battle-proven army as long as NATO doesn't have to join a war - and looking at the current state of the Russian army it is pretty clear that a full scale war with NATO about a NATO member is something Russia wouldn't dare.
And for Ukraine the reasoning is quite obvious. So far no treaty has stopped Russia from becoming aggressive against Ukraine, so only force will stop them. And there is no bigger available diplomatic force in the world than becoming a NATO member if you don't want to be invaded.
How is it inaccurate? Today the U.S. can produce around 30,000 artillery shells a month. In 1995 the army could produce 867,000 shells a month. Was US a communist country in the 90's?
Ukraine joining NATO was discussed in 2008 Summit in Bucharest and discarded after opposition from France and Germany.
In case you haven't noticed, war fighting is done very differently today than during the cold war. Technology is a much bigger player in the process so far less rounds need to be produced by a super power (even though smaller countries continue to need them for regional conflicts).
That was 15 years ago in a completely different political environment, that is totally irrelevant to the current discussion.
This has nothing to do with the present situation of Ukraine joining after the war is over. Also, the Ukraine of 2008 was a much more corrupt nation than the Ukraine of today (even through corruption continues to be an issue that would need to be further addressed before they are allowed to join NATO).
What's a PDB podcast? And what's Peter Thiel's involvement here, I am not following?
The US essentially decided that they don't need and want to be a significant artillery force. They focused much more on their Air Force to fulfill the tactical tasks the artillery would perform for other countries. That's why it makes no sense to compare the US and the Russian artillery production capabilities.
I'm willing to take a leap of faith on the balance of probabilities here.
They are part of the usual consortium of anti-Ukraine support hyper capitalists who believe its better to take the heat off Russia to open up economic opportunity in the Russian sphere.
Get the frick out of here - Ukraine is going to liberate every single inch of their country & join the European Union & NATO when they want it to.
Interesting. I didn't think the Palantir guy would be anti-war, but ok.
He would surely love to sell his surveillance stuff to Russia to make a lot of money? It's the kind of technology Russia really could use to further control it's own people.
Stefan that's a significant assumption: "they focused much more on their Air Force."
Best estimates are we run out of all guided munitions in a large conventional war in about a month. Simply put, U.S. military is not structured to fight or support an extended conflict.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-inventories-six-critical-systems
Fascinating - what do you think we should do to contain these unhinged people?